Published on 4 August 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 21308/24
Janez JANŠA
against Slovenia
lodged on 22 July 2024
communicated on 16 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the defamation proceedings against the applicant, who is a prominent Slovenian politician, president of the Slovenian Democratic Party (“SDS”) and a member of the opposition.
On 21 March 2016 E.C., a well-known journalist at RTV Slovenia (Slovenia’s national public broadcasting organisation) and TV Koper, reported on the Dnevnik program that prominent figures from the SDS party were members of the Facebook group “The Legion of Death,” allegedly involved in inciting hatred.
As a response, on that same day the applicant posted on the online social network Twitter (now X) the following:
“On a certain FB page, public houses offer cheap services from used up prostitutes [E.C.] and [M.P.Š.]. One for 30€, the other for 35€. #PimpMilan”
Deeming the post insulting, E.C. instituted defamation proceedings against the applicant, claiming 6,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damages.
As the applicant failed to respond to the claim, the Velenje Local Court issued a default judgment, allowing E.C.’s claim. The applicant filed an appeal against the default judgment, claiming inter alia a violation of his right to freedom of expression. When assessing the conflict between E.C.’s right to protect her reputation and the applicant’s freedom of expression, all domestic instances which reviewed the case accepted that the impugned statement was a political response to E.C.’s report on Dnevnik and that the words used in the post were not intended to be understood literally, but rather as a metaphor. They considered that the term ‘prostitute’ did not refer to a woman offering sexual services, but instead described journalists who were swayed by political influence. Similarly, the reference to ‘#PimpMilan’ alluded to the former President of Slovenia, whom the applicant claimed had been exerting influence over the media behind the scenes. However, although accepting that the applicant had raised an important public matter regarding the impartiality of the media, the domestic courts concluded that the impugned statement did not have a sufficient factual basis and had been made primarily with the intention of discrediting E.C. as a journalist and a woman. In addition, the Constitutional Court particularly emphasised that allowing an influential politician to make sexist statements about a journalist on social media could harm her personality rights and limit the freedom of expression of other socially engaged women.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was adopted by three votes to two and that of the Constitutional Court by five votes to three.
Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Slovenian courts wrongly evaluated relevant aspects of the case, including the political background of his statement, his position as a member of the opposition and the fact that his statement concerned a matter of significant public interest, namely the impartiality of the media. The applicant further asserts that the domestic courts failed to adequately consider that the statement was posted on Twitter, a platform known for spontaneous and expressive exchange of brief opinions. Additionally, he emphasises that E.C. is a public figure, and that the term ‘used up prostitute’ was used metaphorically to describe a journalist perceived as biased in her reporting, whose professional services are allegedly subject to financial influence.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, for instance, Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 45581/15, § 147, 15 May 2023; Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 242-45, 22 December 2020; Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 137, 17 May 2016; Gaspari v. Armenia (no. 2), no. 67783/13, § 27, 11 July 2023; and Makraduli v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 64659/11 and 24133/13, §§ 61 and 66, 19 July 2018)?